Post by Cronant on Jun 20, 2011 12:10:39 GMT -5
Over the past year or so there's been a WWE trend that annoys me.
It seems like every World title feud between two guys that goes more than a month HAS to result in the title switching hands eventually. The only time I remember that NOT happening recently was Taker/Kane, where Kane beat him 3 straight times.
It seems like every title feud is either
A. "I lost my title to you, lets have more rematches" (Miz/Orton, Rey/Kane)
B. You are the number 1 contender, you lose the first match,win the title next, and finally blow off the feud. (Edge/Kane, Miz/Cena)
I know people like everyone to look strong all the time, and everything to be 50/50, but what happened to a guy taking on a challenger, beating him 2 or 3 times, and moving on the next, doing the same? I know that usually leads to the long reigns like HHH, JBL, and Cena had, but I really don't think every world title feud needs the title to change hands at least once.
It seems like every World title feud between two guys that goes more than a month HAS to result in the title switching hands eventually. The only time I remember that NOT happening recently was Taker/Kane, where Kane beat him 3 straight times.
It seems like every title feud is either
A. "I lost my title to you, lets have more rematches" (Miz/Orton, Rey/Kane)
B. You are the number 1 contender, you lose the first match,win the title next, and finally blow off the feud. (Edge/Kane, Miz/Cena)
I know people like everyone to look strong all the time, and everything to be 50/50, but what happened to a guy taking on a challenger, beating him 2 or 3 times, and moving on the next, doing the same? I know that usually leads to the long reigns like HHH, JBL, and Cena had, but I really don't think every world title feud needs the title to change hands at least once.
